I don't think so. It will be inappropriate if the creator doesn't mention any negative aspect about the video, focusing only in the awesomeness of the video, but if the creator is concient about what changes could be made, or if there were other ways to do the video, then I will not believe their thoughts will be inappropiate.

I was actually speaking to criticism directed at and editor rather than at a specific example of their work. As an example, saying that an editor makes the same technical mistake in every video despite how many times she is told how to correct it. One might come to the conclusion that the editor either doesn't care enough to correct the mistake or has some specific artistic purpose for never correcting it (and then, is it really a mistake?).

However, it is intriguing to consider what role an editor has in the critique and analysis of his or her own work.

Kionon wrote:As an example, saying that an editor makes the same technical mistake in every video despite how many times she is told how to correct it. One might come to the conclusion that the editor either doesn't care enough to correct the mistake or has some specific artistic purpose for never correcting it (and then, is it really a mistake?).

To consider something a mistake requires correct answer, therefore I consider all opinions and critiques as completely subjective. I could talk about efficiency though, rather than the technique itself.

I don't think so. It will be inappropriate if the creator doesn't mention any negative aspect about the video, focusing only in the awesomeness of the video, but if the creator is concient about what changes could be made, or if there were other ways to do the video, then I will not believe their thoughts will be inappropiate.

I was actually speaking to criticism directed at and editor rather than at a specific example of their work. As an example, saying that an editor makes the same technical mistake in every video despite how many times she is told how to correct it. One might come to the conclusion that the editor either doesn't care enough to correct the mistake or has some specific artistic purpose for never correcting it (and then, is it really a mistake?).

However, it is intriguing to consider what role an editor has in the critique and analysis of his or her own work.

Of course my friend, I was already concious about that. But I felt in the mood to mention also the perspective of the editors themselves.

While the value of the criticism sometimes depends also of the intention: Constructive vs Destructive

TritioAFB wrote:While the value of the criticism sometimes depends also of the intention: Constructive vs Destructive

I think that intentionally destructive criticism, while protected by a full understanding of freedom of expression, is not appropriate in an academic setting. I believe that most critical theories, including AMV critical theory, would preclude destructive criticism from being considered valid discourse.

The issue is often: what constitutes destructive criticism, and is destructive criticism only contingent on the intention to inflict pain on the creator of the work being reviewed? One of the reasons that the administrators of #AMV-Review ceased posting logs without permission of the creators was the charge that certain critical comments made by -Review participants were inappropriate forms of criticism, and ultimately destructive rather than constructive. Drama ensued when those participants defended their views as constructive rather than destructive, as their intent was to provide commentary which the creator could use to improve, regardless of perhaps some... colorful language choices.

Does intent matter? Does perception matter? If a perception seems to be in contradiction to an intent, which should come out on top?

Kionon wrote:Does intent matter? Does perception matter? If a perception seems to be in contradiction to an intent, which should come out on top?

!I've actually put a lot of thought on this issue. My conclusion was 'they both matter, but perception has priority.' The reasons are thus.

A communication is constituted of: intention, conversion, language, perception, and understanding. Only conversion and perception can affect intention and understanding to contradict with each other. If a person perceives something as destructive and also the speaker had no intention to be destructive(rather than claiming so), perceived destructiveness is prioritized over constructive intent because perception requires object. Object, in here 'language', is a result of conversion on speaker's side, therefore less-considerate word choice causes contradiction.

Even if the person has 'tendency' to perceive something as destructive it would still put priority on perception, because tendency is a matter of average-extreme; accusing for having non-average tendency is not valid.

butterflo wrote:Even if the person has 'tendency' to perceive something as destructive it would still put priority on perception, because tendency is a matter of average-extreme; accusing for having non-average tendency is not valid.

Not sure I concur with this view of perception vs. intent. If you have a community standard which agrees with that the phrasing of the criticism is not destructive, does the perception really still get priority? Under that theoretical paradigm, any creator who dislikes any kind of criticism could merely say, "This negative criticism is destructive. It's bad because it makes me feel bad. So you should only say positive things." However, I do not believe this is the role of artistic criticism. The old adage, "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all" is not applicable in critical theory.

In fact, I believe much of the culture clash between the Org establishment and new members (especially new members from YouTube and the like) is due to this different view of whether or not feedback should be supportive or critical. If it is only supportive and is never critical, it is, by definition, not criticism and not covered by critical theory. It is a different type of feedback altogether.

I would in fact want people positively or not to criticise my works I do however believe if it is not positive criticism it should come with explanation because I would want to learn from my mistakes or other things if I can improve in anyway and can learn from that criticism then it can be viewed as positive either way. Just my 2cents

Kionon wrote:Under that theoretical paradigm, any creator who dislikes any kind of criticism could merely say, "This negative criticism is destructive. It's bad because it makes me feel bad. So you should only say positive things." However, I do not believe this is the role of artistic criticism. The old adage, "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all" is not applicable in critical theory.

Neither do I. Criticism =/= good comments only. True, any creator can claim a negative criticism as destructive, but this paradigm also invalidates 'I feel bad about it so it itself is bad' because such statements are only true when perception is given as 100% accurate. I prioritized perception because I see criticism as a 'trigger' for that emotion.

I wouldn't give any positive or negative comments on such person though.. especially if he insists on having perfect perception of my intentions

Kionon wrote:Not sure I concur with this view of perception vs. intent. If you have a community standard which agrees with that the phrasing of the criticism is not destructive, does the perception really still get priority?

(can't edit my post! argh!)Yes, regardless of the intention being constructive or destructive. Maybe I need to clarify more What I meant by prioritizing perception is not that intention itself is destructive, but to perceive something as negative and feel bad about it needs a trigger(not 'fault').

chaosgod357 wrote:I would in fact want people positively or not to criticise my works I do however believe if it is not positive criticism it should come with explanation because I would want to learn from my mistakes or other things if I can improve in anyway and can learn from that criticism then it can be viewed as positive either way. Just my 2cents

Slow down and breathe.

What do you define as positive criticism, and what constitutes an explanation?

Hehe .. none of that was said in over excitement actually this came at perfect timing I just got a review/critique of one of my videos that perfectly fits my explanation here I will show you

oh saw on .org...actually having 3﻿ parts in a mep for a friend using this song so i can only be subiective....the concept aint bad..as in source selection and stuff....but must say...u need an extra care and avoid using prolongued scenes..if its not a story-telling clip...its should be a follow-beat..words clip...so try fastening your style (where there is place)..hope i explained my oppinion well ..best of luck and enjoy making some more

This was great I felt because it offended me in no way, it explained how they felt about the video and changes I can make moving forward to improve myself it in itself was what I would call positive criticism and non destructive ^__^

Thank you to the person who left this comment sorry I used it here but it was a great example to what I was trying to say... if you want I will take it down let me know thanks

Many people would not agree with me, but here's a different viewpoint.To me, criticism of videos is about 90% useless. I, for one, have never improved from the critique people have given me, but that doesn't mean I don't want it. I like it when people look into my video in depth, and I don't think it's a waste of time for the other person either.

Personally, I know every little thing that's wrong with my videos. I can name every instance in which there's something wrong, and there's typically 1 at least every 5 seconds. To me, something that's wrong probably isn't wrong to a lot of people, and that's why I typically release flawed videos, even though that sounds weird. People don't typically seem to care about those little things, or even the big ones, or even seem to notice them. I'm not saying everybody else is stupid and I know everything. I'm just saying, as an editor, I know my videos in and out. When someone points out a spot that is wrong, 99.99% of the time, it's something I already know, and that's why I'm never disconcerted or surprised when people point out those things. So I don't have a problem releasing something that's flawed in my eyes, or flawed in others' eyes, because I always feel comfortable knowing that it's flawed to me, and nothing any body else says can make it any more flawed. I'm also just lazy and I don't take my amvs as seriously, so I'm never hurt when someone doesn't like my videos.However, critique, or just plain reactions, are the only reason I make amvs. It's not going to help me improve, but it's certainly going to drive me.

So typically, when I full on review something, I'm naming all the little things I see. I see these in my own amvs too, but unlike most people, to me they're important and also insignificant. For instance: If I see an amv, I'm not watching for all the errors (unless it's blatantly obvious and I can't help it.) I watch it, and I enjoy it, don't, or have mixed feelings, whatever. On the other side, watching it again I see all these little things that could change. And me mentioning all these little things like I do isn't going to help the person. They're not going to go back and change their amv. And when they make a new, completely different amv, it's likely not going to help that either. Amvs are circumstantial, and therefore, so is critique. I could say something all-encompassing, like "watch your fades, there's too many," and maybe that'll help, but 90% of the time, I've never seen my critique help anybody. Do you ever seen an amv released by an editor after you gave them previous critique on a video and say "Wow, they took my advice!" You think telling them that that fade was out of place or that cut was too abrupt helped them make an entirely different video? If you gave them some advice like "watch your transitions next time," not even that's going to help. Watch what? What do I do? What's wrong? You know why that person got better? Probably because they watched amvs. Or they just kept on editing. Or maybe someone gave them some critique that wasn't too generic, but not too specific to be useless either. And a lot of the time, nowadays, it's because they had beta testers. But a critic who improves the editor is the one that doesn't make comments like most people on here do. I will say, there are some pretty good ones, and I think they might have helped improve an editor from their comments, if they chose to take that advice. But ehhhhh, most the time, most comments you see nowadays... no.

So the reason I do it is for myself mostly. I might like the editor and the video, so I'll give them something more in-depth, because it's better to get "long" comments, but in the end, it's most beneficial to me, the reviewer, rather than the editor, because it keeps my mind thinking "critically," as someone before mentioned (can't remember who, kinda just skimmed through the posts lol.)

Like I mentioned before, beta testers improve an editor the most, not critique that comes after the video is done. Myself, I've never sent out betas, unless I was in an MEP. I hate people beta-ing my videos, and I've never done it once in all the time I've been editing amvs. I don't like people telling me what's wrong in my amvs, because I know what's wrong, so your advice is useless to me. I've also never liked it, especially now, because I don't want people to change the way I edit. I want to edit things they way I first thought them to be. To me, that's original. Nobody's mind has thought of that amv but mine, nobody else would put together those same cuts as I did, or put those scenes back to back. And to have someone tell me to change that, I just can't do. I'd rather make a boring amv that no one liked. And I do do that a lot, but it's primarily because I'm lazy, like I mentioned before And I also prefer to surprise people

I realize no one will agree with me on most of the points I made, but I don't feel like it's necessary for me to repeat views that are commonly held, and mine aren't, so there you go.

To answer some of the questions:

Is criticism of the creator always inappropriate?

Not at all. Criticizing an editor has nothing to do with their amv at all, but that doesn't mean it's not necessary either. I've never seen anyone say "this amv sucks, so u suck, go jump off a cliff" before. Unless they were trolling. But if their attitude is plain bad, why not? What's wrong with not holding back a little? Just kidding, but not really.There have been times when an amv was just so bad that my critique came off mean, because it just inspired so much passion within me so as to cause me to just rage all over their amv. Honestly though, if you're gunna get so butt hurt by someone online over an amv, then I don't see a problem with it at all. But in terms of helping the editor improve, being helpful.... lol, no.

In what format should group criticism occur?

I like it when people just get together and talk about an amv, voice or IM, whatever. It just gets people thinking, lets people see the differences among how people view certain things, etc. It's just more thought-inducing to just talk simply about it.

Must a creator give permission for any given and specific type of criticism to occur, especially if the work is posted publicly?

In the end, it's not gunna matter, people can say whatever they want, you can't control them. If they say they aren't looking for certain critique, then I'll be the one to respect that, but in the end, people will do what they want.

Should criticism be anonymous?

Uh, no. In no case is anonymous criticism beneficial. It's also not not beneficial, but there's no reason for it to be anonymous. It's the internet, being a person behind a username is secret enough. If anything, the creator should be anonymous, since it's the reviewers that tend to affect their reputation, not themselves. By releasing your amvs anonymously, people won't judge you for past comments, amvs, etc. But I don't really believe this should happen either, I think you should just own what you say.However, in one case, sometimes you don't want to critique an amv harshly because it's your friend. I don't really have a problem with that, but I always see comments like "Oh awesome job Shelly/Nana/EditorPerson" and they're best friends. And I watch the amv and it's an obvious piece of shit, how can they not see it? I don't know, some people just blow my mind sometimes.

As for this whole "critical theory" stuff, I don't take amvs seriously enough to really consider that. I'm passionate about amvs, kinda, and I can get pretty serious because people are just stupid sometimes, or I just feel like being serious, but critical theory? Way beyond me haha. I say, just keep doing what you're doing. We're all fine with our small comments, or our stupidly detailed long ones, or our mean comments, blah blah. By all means, get together and discuss it things like this "theory", like we are here, but I don't feel like it's necessary to get wrapped up in it either (not that anybody is, but it's just too serious for my taste is all)

Now thats intense and well said ... definite points well made ... I don't think many people can say much more than what you just have lmao well said. Semi goes against what I said before but I would have to agree with what you have said as well... I guess this would be a endless and pointless debate

I pretty much agree with everything you've said actually. It's been my viewpoint about my own editing for years now. I vary rarely take anyone's advice after a video has been completed. During a critique, I'm way more interested in the person's interpretation of the video and why they did or didn't like aspects of it. That said, I wont ever not take advice on how to possibly improve on something, I will most likely just ignore it unless it actually serves as a way for me to improve on (usually only effects work).

For a while I got a lot of flack for using a lot of fades. I didn't really care because that's how I wanted to make the video. That said, looking back at those videos, I can see why I did it that way but as I've grown as an editor though either influence from other editors, critique, or just having a different view on what i'm making, I can see that I could've done things a bit differently. Now, which thing was it that changed my view? Will never know. And honestly, I don't really care. I just want to do what I want to do. Same then as it is now.

Like the AMV .Org App? Think about donating to help me make it better.